J.Ravi Shekar Reddy, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1466 AP

   

(SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION) NE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATIX =
(SPECIAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE
:PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

WRIT PETITION NO: 5587 OF 2021
Between:
1. J.Ravi Shekar Reddy, S/o. Late J.P.Narayana Reddy.
_ 2. K. Ramchandra Charuyulu, S/o. Late K. Sesha Charuyulu.
...Petitioners
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue
(Endowments) Department, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna
District.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments. Department, Kurnool.
4. Smt. B.Sudha Rani, W/e Not known to the petitioners, Aged 40 Years, Occ:
Executive Officer, Gr.!!, Group Temples, Rapthadu, Anantapur District.
...Respondents

WHEREAS the Petitioner above named through their Advocate Sri D V Sasidhar
presented this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to
issue an appropriate Writ order or direction more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of
Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2"? respondent in issuing the proceedings in
Rco.No.E2/2661616/2019 dated 11.11.2020 refixing the notional seniority of the 4'
respondent w.e.f., 25.11.2011 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, void, absurd, without jurisdiction,
violative of principles of natural justice, principles of audi alteram partem, A.P. State &
Sub-Ordinate Service Rules, 1996 and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution
of India and consequently set aside the same.

AND WHEREAS the High Court upon perusing the petition and affidavit filed
herein and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D V Sasidhar, Advocate for the
Petitioners, directed issue of notice to the Respondent No.4 herein to show cause as to
why this WRIT PETITION should not be admitted.

You viz: |
Smt. B.Sudha Rani, Executive Officer, Group Temples, Rapthadu, Anantapur
District.

are be and hereby directed to show cause either appearing in person or through an
Advocate, as to why in the circumstances set out in the petition and the affidavit filed
therewith (copy enclosed) this WRIT PETITION should not be admitted, on or before
31.03.2021, on which date the case stands posted for hearing.

IA NO: 1 OF 2021

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the
respondents 1 to 3 not to give effect any promotions basing on the impuged
proceedings in Rc.No.E2/2681616/2019 dated 11.11.2020 and consequential revised
final seniority list dated 2.12.2020, pending disposal of WP No.5587 of 2021, on the file
of the High Court.
The Court made the following:
 

ORDER:

"Issue notice to the 4" respondent.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to take out personal notice to the 4'" respondent by RPAD and file proof of service into Registry within three (03) weeks.

It is the case of the petitioner that provisional seniority list was published on 16.12.2015 calling for objection from the employees of the same cadre and final list was published in the year 2016 after considering objections. Whereas, the 4" respondent did not file any objections, but in the year 2020, she filed an appeal before the 2™ respondent with a delay condonation petition to condone the delay of more than 4 years in filing appeal against the final seniority list issued by the respondents and the same was allowed as per the material

available on record.

But, the apprehension of the petitioner is that based on such order in appeal, the promotions are being effected and this petitioner will be deprived of the promotion to the next higher category in case the and respondent is allowed to effect promotions based on the disturbed seniority list.

Sri D.V. Sasidhar, learned counsel! for the petitioner mainly contended that when there is an abnormal delay, the same cannot be condoned and he placed reliance on Clause (4) of Circular Memo No.57759/Ser.A/2004-1 of GA (Ser.A) Department, dated 20.05.2004 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in B.S.Bajwa and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab and Ors, 1998-2-Scc-523, and on the basis of the said judgment it is concluded in Clause (5) of the Circular Memo as

follows:-

"5. Government direct that in deleting with the cases for fixing the seniority the procedure and the rules prescribed in Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules or in Special Rules governing the post shall be followed. No request for revision of seniority for a period which is more than 3 years old shall be considered. The seniority list in each category shall be communicated, as and when

the employee completes the prescribed period of probation in the

respective category."

According to Rule 26 of A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996;

(a) except where otherwise provided in these or the special rules, an appeal shall lie against an order fixing the seniority of a person or affecting any conditions of

service, passed by the appointing authority, to the authority to whom an appeal

would lie against an order of dismissal passed against the member of the service, class or category; (b) The powers in sub-rule (b) shall be exercised by the Head of the Department, if he is not the appellate authority, or by the State Government on its.own motion, or on an appeal received by the Head of the Department or the State Government, as the case may be. Further Clause (d) of Rule 26 of Subordinate Services Rules, 1996 says that no appeal for restoration of seniority or assignment of notional seniority on par with his junior shall be entertained by the appellate authority after a period of 90 days from the date on which junior was

promoted.

In view of Clause (d) of Rule 26 of Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 read with Clause (5) of the Circular Memo, after 90 days of the final seniority list, the same cannot be disturbed. Even according to the Circular Memo issued by the

Government, such extraordinary delay cannot be condoned. NN

The Apex Court in B.S.Bajwa's case, the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"it is well settled that in service matter the question of seniority should not be reopened in such situations after the lapse of a | . reasonable period because that results in disturbing the settled position which is not justifiable. There was inordinate delay in the present case for making such a grievance. This alone as sufficient to

decline interference under Article 226 and to reject the writ petition."

Considering the facts and circumstances of the judgment, the delay is approximately 4 % years, but the Court declined to condone the delay and rejected the appeal filed by the Government servant. Hence, applying the principle laid down in the judgment, having found prima facie case in favour of the petitioner, | find that it is a fit case to issue a direction to the respondents not to effect promotions based on the present disturbed seniority list consequent upon appeal after condoning the delay of more than five (05) years filed by the qin

respondent. |

There shall be an interim direction to the respondents not to effect the promotions based on the disturbed seniority list, for a period of two (02) months

from today.

Post the matter after three (03) weeks.

Sd/- MSSURYANAHDA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

[TRUE COPY// Lins SECTION OFFICER

To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments) Department, State of Andhra

Pradesh, Secretariat, Velgapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.

2. The Commissioner, Endowments Department, Gollapudi, Vijayawada, Krishna District.

The Deputy Commissioner, Endowments. Department, Kurnool. Smt. B.Sudha Rani, Executive Officer, Gr.!l, Group Temples, Rapthadu, Anantapur District. (1 to 4 by RPAD- along with a copy of petition and Affidavit) One CC to Sri. D V Sasidhar Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP for Endowments, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] One spare copy.

BO

WNAN

HIGH COURT

MSM,J

DATED:09/03/2021

ORDER

POST THE MATTER AFTER THREE (03) WEEKS

NOTICE BEFORE ADMISSION

WP.No.5587 of 2021

yy, 3 .

INTERIM DIRECTION uy 7

49 MAR 2021 e